Skip to main content

A Biblical Feminism?

Written by Rick Shrader

A Biblical Feminism?

by Rick Shrader

Sure, the men of this world have gotten a little extreme at times. An old German proverb states, ‘‘Never believe a woman, not even a dead one.’’ An old Persian saying goes, ‘‘Woman is a calamity, but every house must have its curse.’’ The Talmud teaches, ‘‘Better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman.’’ But the women of this world have often had their say also. ‘‘Men become older, but they never become good.’’ ‘‘Sure I wear the pants in this family, somebody’s got to.’’ However, these amiable exchanges do not fairly represent the attitude of today’s Feminists. A popular Hollywood feminist says, ‘‘I’m loud, and I’m vulgar and I wear the pants in the family.’’ Another activist admonishes, ‘‘Liberation will not happen unless individual women agree to be outcasts, eccentrics, perverts, and whatever the powers-to-be choose to call them.’’ Columnist Suzanne Fields responded, ‘‘This is hilarious, but not funny. When real men finally fight back, it may be too late.’’

‘‘But,’’ we say, ‘‘all of this does not affect the Body of Christ.’’ We should know better! The cultural battles of our secular society are usually just a precursor of similar battles in the church. Today’s ‘‘Christian Feminists’’ (a pregnant oxymoron) are lamenting ‘‘the appalling loss to God’s kingdom that results when half of the church’s members are excluded from positions of responsibility’’ and the tragedies that follow a ‘‘hierarchical interpretation of the husband’s ‘headship.’’ Since they have appealed to the Scripture for justification, we should note their point of view and answer accordingly. There are two major scriptures brought into question on this issue.

Galatians 3:28. Paul writes, ‘‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’’ Feminists consider this passage the most important statement in the Bible on equality. Paul Jewett (Man as Male and Female) calls this the Magna Carta of Humanity. Stendahl (The Bible and the Role of Woman) sees Paul reversing the order of creation and advocating that these categories in Gal 3:28 are functional as well as positional. Any lines, they say, that separate the function of men and women in the church have been obliterated by this statement of the Apostle. This includes the offices of Pastor and Deacon as well as teaching and authority positions.

Is that what Paul means by this statement? Not at all! One could not find a more didactic portion of scripture on the nature of our justification in Christ than this portion of Galatians. Throughout the third chapter male and female are included as mankind, human beings, in the great story of sin and redemption until we are all brought to salvation ‘‘in Christ Jesus’’ in verse twenty eight. In the family of God, all human beings are equally sinners saved by grace. Neither race nor gender makes one more or less of these.  Peter admonishes husbands to keep in mind that although the wife is the ‘‘weaker vessel’’ in her function in life, she is an ‘‘heir together (with him) of the grace of life’’ (1 Peter 3:7) in her spiritual essence. ‘‘In Christ Jesus’’ we are all saved souls. That is how God sees us. But that does not change our stewardship before Him as we carry out our calling.

1 Corinthians 11:3. Paul writes, ‘‘But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.’’ The problem for the feminists is obvious and they have approached the problem in ways ranging from denying the inspiration of Paul at this point to blatant refusal to accept the authority of scripture at this point. But their major thrust in this verse has been to redefine the word ‘‘head.’’ Feminists, unable to accept the common interpretation of ‘‘head’’ as ‘‘authority,’’ have searched high and low for a meaning acceptable to their point of view. Writers such as Alvera Mickelsen (Women, Authority and the Bible) and Markus Barth (The Anchor Bible, Eph 1-3) have scoured the ancient uses of the word kefalh to find a place where the word could mean ‘‘source.’’ They have found scarce sources where the word might refer to a river’s ‘‘head’’ and, therefore, mean ‘‘source’’ and one Greek lexicon where the plural is given the optional meaning of ‘‘source’’ (Liddell & Scott).

The feminist interpretation is lacking in two points. The first is context. Paul is not at all saying that man procreated from Christ and Christ procreated from God, therefore, the woman simply procreated from the man. This is a passage on authority and relationships. It is impossible to find the idea of ‘‘source’’ in these couplets. The second error is a typical lexicon and concordance usage problem. For some reason many treat such reference books as a multiple-choice pool of meanings. They simply take the meaning that they want to attach to the word but now they can say they have a reference. No language dictionary works that way. Rather, it lists possible meanings the word may assume in a given context. Generally, only one of those possible meanings will fit. In this case, ‘‘authority’’ and ‘‘source’’ cannot both be right.

What more can we say? Christian Feminism tends to make us all uncomfortable. Not because we are unsure of the biblical position, but because we know what friction the explanation causes. But perhaps we should be thankful. First, because we are being forced to restate our position in a more relevant way. The present generation of young people needs to hear the church’s position taught plainly. Secondly, because we need to get over that uncomfortable feeling when stating biblical truth. This is what we are called to do in our generation.  We don’t do feminists or anyone else in our churches a favor by softening the Bible on this point. Perhaps if we hadn’t been so soft for so long it wouldn’t hurt so much now. No wonder the Apostle Paul takes so much guff. But it was the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write, ‘‘I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression’’ (1 Timothy 2:12-14). And in case one thinks that such a doctrine is oppressive to women, consider the position of women in Christian societies for the last two thousand years compared to Muslim societies, tribal societies or any other non-Christian societies. Men and women alike are thankful for the liberation Christianity has brought us.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Values Or Morals?

Written by Rick Shrader

Values Or Morals?

by Rick Shrader

May I express my opinion about you being so fat? Not according to a recent interview I heard on the radio! It seems a woman journalist adorned her averaged sized frame with a ‘‘fat suit’’ that made her appear 150 pounds heavier than normal. She then spent the day mingling among the unaware, expecting to feel embarrassed and awkward. Instead, the journalist was outraged at the comments and innuendoes made about her obvious obesity. In the interview she called such comments as much ‘‘racist’’ and ‘‘bigoted’’ as ethnic comments might be about blacks or Hispanics. Uncalled for, yes, but bigoted? Racist? If I make a value judgment about obesity and conclude that such is not good, even wrong, am I not allowed to express such a conclusion? Now perhaps the way in which I express myself is right or wrong, but is the opinion itself wrong? This is a case of society, when it wants, making a simple value into a serious moralism.

But let’s turn the coin over. Again, on the radio, I heard a reaction from a pro-homosexual to a ‘‘right-wing fundamentalist type’’ being delivered as ‘‘who made your set of values better than anyone else’s set of values?’’ Now we have the case of society, as it wants, making a serious moral issue into a casual ‘‘set of values.’’ As we all have experienced, it is getting more and more difficult to conform to the standard of the politically correct thought-police.

Where did we lose such a good word (excuse me for making a judgment) as ‘‘value?’’ And where did we lose any connection to what is really moral or not? Can we really exchange these two words at will? Perhaps even the church has been so enamored by society’s use of ‘‘value’’ that we sold the word to them at a high price. There were some among us years ago who thought ‘‘values clarification’’ in the schools was a good and noble thing. ‘‘At last we will teach good values to our kids.’’ Did we?

My 1976 American Heritage Dictionary does an acceptable job of defining ‘‘moral’’ and ‘‘value.’’ Something that is ‘‘moral’’ has to do with ‘‘the goodness and badness of human action, the discernment of good and evil.’’ Something that is of ‘‘value’’ has ‘‘utility or merit.’’ It means to ‘‘rate according to relative estimate of worth.’’ In other words, Something that is moral is absolute, totalitarian, black or white, whereas something that is of value is utilitarian, good only because it serves you well. The value to you of a certain object or even concept might be great at one point but poor at the next. It is the circumstance that dictates value.

Is it no wonder why our society likes the word ‘‘value’’ but hates the word ‘‘morals?’’ Morality (Victorian, legalistic, Puritanic) is a barrier to self-expression and man’s basic drives and desires. Values, on the other hand, reduces an adulterer to a sexual partner, homosexuality to an alternative life-style and abortion to a choice. And in case something is left in the philosophical middle, we have what the Rev. Charles Curran called ‘‘proportionate reason,’’ that there may be a compelling reason to do something even though it is wrong.

What will be the result on our society as we have known it? Is this what C. S. Lewis said in The Abolition of Man,  would finally produce the destruction of humanity? Oliver Wendell Holmes envisioned this type of society in his The Common Law when he wrote, ‘‘Truth is the majority vote of that nation that can lick all others.’’ Holmes also wrote in a personal letter, ‘‘So when it comes to the development of a corpus juris the ultimate question is what do the dominant forces of the community want and do they want it hard enough to disregard whatever inhibitions must stand in the way.’’ Alan Bloom traced the word ‘‘values’’ as we have been using it, back to Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s influence on Adolf Hitler is common knowledge. In Auschwitz today, the words of Hitler are recorded: ‘‘I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality . . . we will  train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence–imperious, relentless and cruel.’’ The results of a Germany where the elite ruled without morals and with only relative values is all too familiar.

Opinions as to what the church ought to be doing in this kind of society are varied. Some hawks are out in the streets, city halls and abortion clinics crying the message of morality to a sinful society. Some doves are withdrawn into the security of their closets, waiting for the end. It seems to me that the early church was somewhere between the hawks and the doves. The Roman church was not advised to line the streets of Rome holding hands and protesting abortions, homosexuals and child abuse. But neither did Paul neglect to have morality taught to the church or to speak personally to Roman guards to whom he was chained. The early church worked on society from the inside out and on the church from the inside and the outside. Paul did not command the church to take judgment of the lost into its own hands. He did, however, command the church to ‘‘judge those who are within’’ (1 Cor 5:12) so that at least the church would be a testimony of morality and virtue.

But are we distinguishing between morals and values in the local church? Can we still talk about absolutes and commitment to the truth or are we simply making a bid for a sizeable market? The nineties is not the decade for commitment nor for behavioral absolutes. We may laugh when we mistakenly sing the old song, ‘‘Take my life and let me be’’ but that is truly an accurate expression of today’s average Christian. When people come to our church do they bring with them, as Dave Breese wrote, ‘‘The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life.’’ Then he concludes, ‘‘That is the heart of existentialism.’’ Utilitarian values fit well into the thinking of such people. Morals are frightening, restricting and inhibiting to the deeper cultivation of self-esteem.

I have no doubt that preaching on moral issues such as fornication, cursing, drunkenness, modesty or being unequally yoked to unbelievers will not be popular to some. For popularity, we must put all of these issues into the context of ‘‘values’’ as they relate to each person’s situation. Give them an ‘‘out’’ in case their situation becomes too tough. In this way we can say we have upheld a standard and also been on the cutting edge. ‘‘Conversely,’’ as Ravi Zacharias writes, ‘‘upholding the moral law as an expression of his love, in response to the love of God, is the sound of the Christian worshipping his Maker. The moral law, then, is not seen as an imposition upon him from without; rather, it is a commitment born out of gratitude to the God whose love he has experienced. This relationship, undergirded and motivated by love, in recognition of who God is, forms the foundation of right and wrong.’’

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Knowing The Time

Written by Rick Shrader

Knowing The Time

by Rick Shrader

We are all concerned, or at least should be, with knowing what’s going on in our own generation. Even though we may protest, our churches are affected by the present culture often to the same degree as most transient institutions. It is not, therefore, a consolation to have to agree with Neil Postman when he writes, ‘‘Today, we must look to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, as a metaphor of our national character and aspiration, its symbol a thirty-foot-high cardboard picture of a slot machine and a chorus girl. For Las Vegas is a city entirely devoted to the idea of entertainment, and as such proclaims the spirit of a culture in which all public discourse increasingly takes the form of entertainment.’’

No man understood his generation better than the Apostle Paul. But, when the Apostle penned those words, ‘‘knowing the time,’’ in Romans 13:11, he had a far greater perspective than most culture-watchers today. It seems the contemporary church always considers itself on top of things. We know what methods are out-dated and we know what methods ‘‘work’’ in our time and we change our plans accordingly. What doesn’t seem to change very often is our motive for making change. I often hear men younger than I criticizing a former generation for its method and motive for success. But most of the time I don’t see any difference other than the form their methods and motives take. Today’s young ‘‘progressives’’ are as adept as any before them at reading the market and delivering the goods. I wonder also if their motive is as pure as they often boast. I don’t buy the idea that all methods are matters of preference and only motives are matters of conviction. I have to ask myself, have we merely become professional pragmatists? I agree with one contemporary writer who observed, ‘‘A pragmatist is concerned primarily with whether a given practice is expedient, not necessarily with whether it is in harmony with Scripture. He starts with the question, ‘What do the unchurched want?’ and builds his strategy from there, rather than asking the question, ‘What does Scripture teach about church ministry?’ and following a biblical pattern.’’

Several years ago, Francis Schaeffer warned of this danger. He wrote, ‘‘The Christian is to resist the spirit of the world. But when we say this we must understand that the world-spirit does not always take the same form. So the Christian must resist the spirit of the world in the form it takes in his own generation. If he does not do this he is not resisting the spirit of the world at all.’’ I fear that my generation too often caters to the ‘‘hot-buttons’’ of its peers. We have decided to draw people with what they want rather than what they need. We have decided to concede the battle on the cultural (and sometimes moral) front so that we might somehow win the battle on the eternal front.

The greatest reformer since the Apostle Paul, Martin Luther, said of his generation’s battles, ‘‘If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.’’ Have we not done this very thing in the sanctuaries of our fundamental churches? Are we that jealous of the success of the charlatans? And so much so that we use the sirens of the very people we are trying to help in an attempt to reach them?

In Romans thirteen, when Paul recognized the time, he said, ‘‘that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day.’’ The clear admonition is to piety and godly living, pleasing God rather than men. There is something about the eternal perspective that brings our vicinal perspective into better focus. An optometrist once told me that if I am working at my desk for long periods of time that I should, every so often, look up and focus my eyes on something across the room or outside the window. If I don’t, the muscles that hold my eyes in close focus will be out of balance with those that hold them in distant focus.

The reason Paul had a proper focus on his generation is not because he spent all of his time studying the contemporary landscape, but because he often spent time gazing into eternity. As John the Apostle wrote, ‘‘And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.’’ I am certainly not advocating putting our heads in the sand of our generation. I want to be as effective with my neighbor as the next man. But ‘‘a false balance is an abomination.’’ To be ‘‘wise as serpents and harmless as doves,’’ is it necessary to become friends of the world? Not if the words of Christ are still relevant.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Is Hell Forever?

Written by Rick Shrader

Is Hell Forever?

by Rick Shrader

There is a renewed twist in an old doctrine these days. We remember hearing about when fundamentalists fought the liberals over the existence of hell. Many of them have found the truth by now. We have lived with the notion that hell is not literal, enduring the hermeneutical gymnastics of left wing evangelicals who believed that the fire of hell would be no more literal than the tongue which is a fire. Now it seems we are going to spar with the view that hell is real and hot but not eternal. That is, the fire itself may be literal and eternal but the lost souls which are cast therein are annihilated.

U.S. News and World Report, March 25, 1991, featured this controversy among evangelicals and liberals and included some surprising names representing the annihilation viewpoint. I wasn’t surprised to read the Rev. Mary Kraus of the Dumbarton United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C. say that her parishioners are ‘‘upper-middle-class, well-educated critical thinkers’’ who view God as ‘‘compassionate and loving, not someone who’s going to push them into eternal damnation.’’ But I was surprised to read Clark Pinnock (quoted in the Criswell Theological Review) asking, ‘‘How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness as to inflict everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? A God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God.’’ I was equally disappointed to read John Stott contending that the fire of hell may be eternal and unquenchable but that ‘‘it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible.’’ And Philip Hughes argued that the traditional belief in an unending punishment is linked to the erroneous belief in the ‘‘innate immortality of the soul–a belief that is based more on Plato than on the Bible.’’

I don’t mean to make this doctrine seem new. From the days of Origen (A.D. 185-254) the liberal thinker has sought an expositional way out of an eternal hell. In 1932, B.B. Warfield (Studies in Theology) divided this doctrine into three views: Pure mortalism, that no soul lives without a body; conditional immortality, that only saved souls live forever after the body dies; and annihilationism proper, that sin brings actual punishment on a lost soul but not eternally. Today’s thinking on this subject is actually rethinking but sometimes rethinking has a way, at least to some, of refining the doctrine into a more acceptable form.

Today, we can make a two-fold division of the view. First, there is annihilationism. Some are saying again that hell may be real and hot but the souls that are cast into it will be immediately destroyed and will be, as the Jehovah Witness doctrine says, ‘‘as if they had never existed before.’’ An interesting book by Mark Graeser and others titled Is There Death After Life? reopens this old discussion and even tries to enlist Luther and other Reformers into this camp. They also present the view that lost souls cease consciousness at death and saved souls sleep without consciousness until resurrection.

Second, there is universalism (restorationism, conditionalism). These are the theories that say some or all lost souls will have a second chance to be saved after death. Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, speaking at the joint session of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (which was opened by Mary Daly of Boston College, a self-proclaimed witch), presented what they called ‘‘Wider Hope Theology,’’ the view that there may be hope even for the lost who have already died. While reading Bruce Lockerbie’s delightful book The Cosmic Center, I was surprised to read that he was not sure all the heathen who have never heard of Jesus Christ would go to hell and admitted that, ‘‘some, while reading this broader view of redemption, will take offense (p. 179).’’ Whichever temporal view of hell one takes, it still takes the sting out of punishment for sin. As Harold Brown of Trinity Divinity School said, ‘‘to tell the unrepentant that the worst fate that could befall them is extinction, makes continuing in sin less risky.’’

We have to agree with Millard Erickson when he says, ‘‘the problem with all of the forms of annihilationism is that they contradict the teaching of the Bible.’’ The issue, of course, for those of us who accept scripture as final authority, hinges largely on the Greek word aionios, usually translated ‘‘eternal’’ or ‘‘everlasting.’’ The word is used some seventy times in the New Testament, the great majority of which modify ‘‘life’’ and give us the concept of ‘‘eternal life.’’ In connection with hell we have, ‘‘eternal damnation’’ (Mk 3:29), ‘‘eternal fire’’ (Matt 25:41, 46), ‘‘eternal destruction’’ (2 Thes. 1:9), ‘‘eternal judgment’’ (Heb 6:2) and ‘‘eternal fire’’ (Jude 7).  What does this adjective tell us about each noun? I believe it tells us the same thing about those nouns as about the following: ‘‘everlasting God’’ (Rom 16:26), Jesus Christ was ‘‘before time eternal’’ (2 Tim 1:9), eternal Spirit’’ (Heb 9:14), ‘‘eternal covenant’’ (Heb 13:20), ‘‘everlasting kingdom’’ (2 Pet 1:11) and ‘‘everlasting gospel’’ (Rev 14:6). Perhaps if hell is not ‘‘eternal,’’ neither is God ‘‘eternal.’’ And what about eternity for the faithful? Surely we can’t criticize Paul for using the word aionios both ways in the same book: ‘‘everlasting destruction’’ (2 Thes 1:9) for the lost and ‘‘everlasting consolation’’ (2:16) for the saved. One is as long as the other! Unger quotes Van Oosterzee as asking, ‘‘There is no doubt that Holy Scripture requires us to believe in a properly so-called place of punishment. . . who shall say that the reality will not infinitely surpass in awfulness the boldest pictures of it?’’

Humanly speaking, I could wish that hell were not eternal and that living souls did not spend eternity there. Anyone who has buried a lost friend or loved one wishes so. But we have no choice in the matter. An infinitely wise God has designed eternity and has spoken plainly. My problem is a worse one than speculation. It is summed up in a statement Martin Marty once made, ‘‘If people really believed in hell, they wouldn’t be watching basketball or even TV preachers, they’d be out rescuing people!’’ Selah!

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Our Amendment 2

Written by Rick Shrader

Our Amendment 2

by Rick Shrader

For those of us who live in Colorado, the homosexual issue is a daily routine. We are constantly reminded at every turn of our intolerance toward those who call themselves homosexual or gay. Amendment 2 in this state is a microcosm of the feeling of the nation as a whole.  This issue has raised a vital question concerning homosexuality that, as believers, we must address.

Homosexuality is being made an issue of race or even gender by the gay community. Amendment 2 addresses it as an issue of conduct. It says that homosexuality is a practice and should not be considered a minority group like Blacks, Hispanics or Jews. The voters agreed but, of course, public officials and judges bowed to pressure from the left and suspended the law’s enactment until its constitutionality is decided in court. Judge Bayless reminded us that we are a ‘‘constitutional democracy.’’ We make laws by majority vote but they become law only if judges like himself pronounce them constitutional. Meanwhile the nation is watching while a fierce campaign is launched by the politically correct, to convince voters that practicing homosexuals are a race or gender of people and not people of various races or genders. President Clinton may make the largest contribution to the campaign by commanding the military not to view homosexuality as an immoral behavior subject to due consequences.

We who are Christians can be defined as ‘‘believers.’’ We believe that there is a God who has revealed Himself and His moral will to His creation. That revelation is the Word of God, the Bible. There can be no doubt (though some feebly try) that the Bible consistently treats homosexuality as a moral sin that is an offense to a holy God. The Old Testament contains two lengthy narratives describing homosexual conduct. They are Genesis 19:1-11 and Judges 19:1-30. In both cases, men of the cities (Sodom and Gibeah) demand that a host turn over his male guests to them so they can homosexually rape them en masse. When the lust of the flesh is given legal or moral rein to satisfy its desire to any degree it sees fit, freedom will always be in jeopardy. God’s judgment on them is plain.

There are three passages in the moral code of God’s law. They are Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17. There God calls this act an ‘‘abomination’’ that is worthy of death. Some have argued that since these verses are in the Mosaic Law they should be disregarded just as Sabbath keeping or animal sacrifices. But there is a difference between the ceremonial codes for Israel in the old economy and the moral codes that run as themes throughout the Scripture.

The New Testament does not change God’s description of homosexuality as a moral sin. There are three passages where this sin is treated in particular. They are Romans 1:24ff, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. These passages contain such descriptive language as ‘‘uncleanness,’’ ‘‘vile affections,’’ ‘‘against nature,’’ ‘‘unseemly,’’ ‘‘effeminate,’’ ‘‘abusers of themselves,’’ and those that ‘‘defile themselves.’’ Paul tells Timothy that it is ‘‘contrary to sound doctrine.’’ Romans 1:27 says that they will ‘‘receive in themselves the due penalty for their perversion’’ (there are physical consequences for violating God’s laws of nature).

Walter Kaiser, a foremost Biblical scholar, summarized the Bible’s teaching on this subject by writing, ‘‘Homosexuality must be listed as a sexual perversion, a defilement of a country in which it is practiced, and an abomination in God’s eyes. Anything less than this is a form of specious reasoning.’’

There is a principle found in the biblical teaching on this subject where believers must draw a line. That is, homosexuality is a practice. It can be described, condemned, practiced and shunned. It can be present within a nation or absent. The Bible does not entertain the idea of a homosexual or gay person. Rather, it recognizes that persons practice homosexuality. They are people who ‘‘dishonor their own bodies’’ (Rom 1:24), who ‘‘burn in their lust one toward another’’ (Rom 1:27). They are men who ‘‘leave the natural use of the woman’’ (Rom 1:27). Even in the list of 1 Cor 6:9-10, the word ‘‘effeminate’’ (KJV) is otherwise translated ‘‘homosexual offenders’’ (NIV). These are people who offend God by practicing homosexuality. The Apostle concludes that none of these people ‘‘shall inherit the kingdom of God.’’ God never makes such an exclusion based on race or gender. God excludes people from His kingdom based on the decisions they make.

It is probable that the scientific community will find a way to advocate that people who practice homosexuality were born that way. It is rare not to find such a point of view on any talk shows or editorial pages. Science has become a very accommodating partner to social correctness. But there have always been issues where believers have had to draw the line between Caesar and God. This is one of them. We stand on God’s truth. Paul did not give a scientific or social analysis of this practice to the church in Rome, the hotbed of first century homosexuality. Nor did he propose a lengthy political agenda in order to change the Empire from without. He simply advocated the power of God’s Word to change individuals who might be willing to repent of their willful sin.

Walter Kaiser also concluded, ‘‘It (homosexuality) is a sin that must be dealt with as any other sin even though the gospel also offers freedom, forgiveness, and healing from this sin as from any other–or it is no gospel at all.’’ The gospel does not change a black man into a red man, or a yellow man into a brown man. It changes a sinful man into a righteous man. It will change a practicing homosexual. Not into a color different from his own, but into a man who practices a different style of life.

Paul said of the Corinthians, ‘‘And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God’’ (1 Cor 6:11).  Governments may, at times, recognize or not recognize the immorality of certain practices but God’s view and the Christian’s responsibility will remain the same throughout the ages.  The problem is not reformation but regeneration.

THANK YOU!

We appreciate your interest in one more paper like this one.  The Lord knows we all have more to read than we can get to and it has been my experience that profitable reading usually comes in a harder cover than this. However, we all need to make our contribution in a way that can be most effective. Perhaps this can be our way if the Lord is pleased.

We have a two-fold purpose in putting out this publication.  First, we would like to comment on the issues of our day that relate to Christians in our society. Although many subjects may find application from the text that is preached on Sunday, those subjects and others need to be put in print and space needs to be available for further explanation. Second, perhaps we can encourage thought and interaction that will stimulate you to let us know what you are thinking. I hope, from time to time, we can print the comments and views of others as well so that we can stay current with good thoughts that I know are there in God’s family.

We will also be printing short book reviews. We would like you to know what we are thinking about some of the new books on the market and also we would like you to rediscover some of the great books from past years that you might want to read or reread. Send us your brief comments about a book that you have read and if we print it we will include your name as the contributor.

Thank you for your interest! We trust this effort will be a help and a blessing to you.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More